Battleships for Alliance navy

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:49 am

- you need an incredible of highly specific tool, training and raw materials. The probme is not steel. It's manganeze, molybdene, tin, copper, tungsten... (for example to produce a single long duration bulblight you need a tiny quantity of tungsten). To produce them you need mines and know where to dig. To support them you need coal, food and so on.

Well, but all this also work with the building of destroyers and light cruisers. Moreover, they actually need more quality of materials than the battleships, because their structure aren't that durable. As i recall, Alliance have at least two destroyers in production now; so, they somehow were able to solve this problems?



avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Admin on Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:04 pm

well for DD you need steel. Good one but not hardened one (it's not a Krupp, not a face A one). You can produce it without too many problems. Battleships on the other hand require some highly specific steels (I will not go into details but it's full of words like martensite, austenite, ductible alloy... ).

Example (from http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm):

Armor used for horizontal protection (armored decks and turret or conning tower roofs) and for vertical protection from 1-4 inches (25.4-101.6 mm) thick was of a soft, ductile, homogeneous steel manufactured by Krupp and called by the German Navy "Wotan Harte n/A" (Hardened 'Wotan' steel New Type), abbreviated "Wh n/A." Wh was first used in the German cruisers and "Pocket Battleships" of the late 1920's and remained in use through the end of WWII. The steel was a slightly improved form of the original medium-carbon (0.2-0.4 percent carbon) nickel-chromium steel introduced in 1894 by Krupp and later forming the basis of all high-grade armors made of steel even today by all nations. Wh n/A used some molybdenum to improve manufacturing results and was slightly tougher (crack resistant) than the original "High-Percent Nickel-Steel," also called "Krupp Soft" or "Quality 420" (Krupp's own label) steel, used through the end of WWI. Otherwise, there was little to choose from between the older armors and Wh n/A armor. British "Non-Cemented" armor (NCA) and U.S. "Class 'B'" armor or "Special Treatment Steel (STS) were similar materials, to name just a few.

and this one is a second rate armor... You can imagine the problem! Not only do they don't have the materials but also they don't know that as at this time it was a state secret.

In our world you need 3-7 years to produce a battleship with a full functional industry and on going production. Just imagine the effort that you would require just for the tooling.

A basic CVE would be much easier to produce

Admin
Admin

Posts : 73
Join date : 2015-07-01

http://destroyermen.forumactif.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:13 pm

You can produce it without too many problems. Battleships on the other hand require some highly specific steels (I will not go into details but it's full of words like martensite, austenite, ductible alloy... ).

Of course, but i propose not the Krupp cementes, but the concrete composite. upped by the 4-inch Harvey face-hardened steel plate and backed with the 4-inch soft steel plate to stop the fragments that came through the concrete. It would be much easier to produce, and competely within the Alliance technology.

Also, the Alliance are proposing cruisers, if i'm not mistaken? Something near "Omaha"-class? They need armor. Moreover, they need Krupp armor, because she simpler types would wiehgt way too more.

Frankly, the battleship is less a problem. Yes, it need a lot of armor, but her armor may be not the best possible quality, if we aren't going to high speed or limited displacement. We could simply build the battleship bigger to carry more weight.

This wouldn't work with cruisers, because they are supposed to be fast. And they couldn't waste a large part of avalialbe weight toward armor.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:17 pm

A basic CVE would be much easier to produce

Yes, but with the level of aircraft technology, avaliable to Alliance, the CVE would have much less capabilites than the escort carriers of World War II. Basically, it would be the early 1930s level CVE. And if the opposing side would also have aircover, the strike ability of CVE's would be greatly reduced.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Admin on Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:59 pm

" It would be much easier to produce, and competely within the Alliance technology."

Probably. Now as they can't do everything at once the question: do we need to invest so much in battleships while we already have effective weapons? what are they going to give us?

"This wouldn't work with cruisers, because they are supposed to be fast. And they couldn't waste a large part of avalialbe weight toward armor."

Not really: you assume that they need to be fast as they were designed that way here, to avoir BB. But there? BB are REALLY slow so what's the use of a too fast ship? We can expect to see mor balanced designs, non?

The CVE would be 1930 like, indeed but the otehr side can't have aircover (unless it's the ligue but they don't know it).



Admin
Admin

Posts : 73
Join date : 2015-07-01

http://destroyermen.forumactif.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:25 pm

Probably. Now as they can't do everything at once the question: do we need to invest so much in battleships while we already have effective weapons? what are they going to give us? 




Durability. The ability to sustain damage and deliver damage despite being hit. Currently the Alliance fleet haven't got anything that could stand and fight against even moderately modern warships. Their carriers are slow (so the hit-and-run tactic is generally out of question - even the "Savoie" would be able to close with them) and their surface combatant aren't durable. If the Alliance fleet would be forced to stand and fight against the enemy, that they wouldn't be able to overwhelm with air power, they would have a awful lot of problems.


Not really: you assume that they need to be fast as they were designed that way here, to avoir BB. But there? BB are REALLY slow so what's the use of a too fast ship? We can expect to see mor balanced designs, non?
Well, in that direction - yes. Something like "Dupuy de Lome" would be much more balanced, of course - and it would be durable enough to serve as at least "partially battleship", if the Alliance fleet would dragged into the surface battle once more.





The CVE would be 1930 like, indeed but the otehr side can't have aircover (unless it's the ligue but they don't know it).




The Kurokawa have fighters, if i'm not mistaken? He have a capability to build at least a few escort carriers for himself. 



And yes, the League. They have modern warships - as big as battleship - and have enpugh to consider the loss of large submarine as the acceptable. I doubt that they would be impressed by the Alliance air force. And, they probably have radars. The French were pretty good in that mattrer before the war. So the night attack of torpedo crafts wouldn't  probably work against them, either.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Admin on Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:31 pm

Currently the Alliance fleet haven't got anything that could stand and fight against even moderately modern warships.

yes and they can't expect many of them. They won't invest 5 years (at least) to get them if they can get another weapon faster

Their carriers are slow (so the hit-and-run tactic is generally out of question - even the "Savoie" would be able to close with them) and their surface combatant aren't durable. If the Alliance fleet would be forced to stand and fight against the enemy, that they wouldn't be able to overwhelm with air power, they would have a awful lot of problems.

So the basic idea is NOT to stand and fight but to use their mobility and the plane range.

The Kurokawa have fighters, if i'm not mistaken? He have a capability to build at least a few escort carriers for himself.

not a chance. He has basic fighters but he would need a Langley to train pilots and so on. Well he needds 10 years to do so.



And yes, the League. They have modern warships - as big as battleship - and have enpugh to consider the loss of large submarine as the acceptable. I doubt that they would be impressed by the Alliance air force. And, they probably have radars. The French were pretty good in that mattrer before the war. So the night attack of torpedo crafts wouldn't probably work against them, either.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 73
Join date : 2015-07-01

http://destroyermen.forumactif.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:42 pm

yes and they can't expect many of them. They won't invest 5 years (at least) to get them if they can get another weapon faster

The problem is, how effective this weapon could be?


So the basic idea is NOT to stand and fight but to use their mobility and the plane range.

And the problem is, that it did not work all time. The simple solution is the defensive battle. You couldn't run indefinitely, if you are forced to defend something (and by now the Alliance is forced to defend the Madagascar, which means that they lost their freedom of movement for a large degree). 

Also, there is bad weather, night time, or just a bad luck or tactical mistakes.


not a chance. He has basic fighters but he would need a Langley to train pilots and so on. Well he needds 10 years to do so. 


Er, he already have battleship that are much bigger than "Langley". He could put the fly-off platform on some of them in a week at most, and start training immediatly. This isn't hard, if he needed the carrier only for air cover.

Generally, if he stuck only with fighters - i.e. if he wouldn't try to use carriers as strike force, and only as aircraft cover for the fleet - he could have carriers in a few month. 

What would he need? Take one "Arata Amagi"-class battleship, rip her casemate armor. Cut her upper casemate and redirect the funnels to one side. Then, build a light wooden deck over the casemate, and use the space under deck as a hangar.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Admin on Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:52 pm

The problem is, how effective this weapon could be?

It does not work that way. You get a weapon is you see the need and there is no other way of doing so. I don't see the need for BB right now. They need weapons now, not in 5 years.

You couldn't run indefinitely, if you are forced to defend something (and by now the Alliance is forced to defend the Madagascar, which means that they lost their freedom of movement for a large degree).

No they don't haveto. You also mix the strategic level, the operational level and the tactical level. You can fight a runaway battle while remaining of the strategic offensive.

Er, he already have battleship that are much bigger than "Langley". He could put the fly-off platform on some of them in a week at most, and start training immediatly. This isn't hard, if he needed the carrier only for air cover.

ok, we needed 10-20 years to develop a working carrier force with a world fun of trained men. It can just not happen.


What would he need? Take one "Arata Amagi"-class battleship, rip her casemate armor. Cut her upper casemate and redirect the funnels to one side. Then, build a light wooden deck over the casemate, and use the space under deck as a hangar.

... You don't know a lot about naval technology, do you? Example: in our world engineers worked during 10 years to solve the smoke problem. They generate turbulences. By the way a coal ship can't use its machines during landing / take off as it generates too much smoke for aircrafts. How can you expect them to solve it easily? They can construct the thing and then they will die trying to land. And it's just an example among thousands of them.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 73
Join date : 2015-07-01

http://destroyermen.forumactif.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:04 pm

You get a weapon is you see the need and there is no other way of doing so. I don't see the need for BB right now. They need weapons now, not in 5 years.


The problem is, that I may need other weapon, because the situation could changes. Frankly, i'm in favor of balanced approach. 


No they don't haveto. You also mix the strategic level, the operational level and the tactical level. You can fight a runaway battle while remaining of the strategic offensive. 




They started to mix as soon as aviation appeared over the battlefields. For example, let's suggest that Griks & Kurokawa would send large enough fleet toward Madagascar, and protect it sufficienly from the Alliance air attacks. What "runaway battle" could do, if the airstrikes would not do the job quickly enough? The "Jeune Ecole"'s doctrine of "continious influence" always lagged in situation, when the time is limited and you need to stop the enemy from coming to the point that you must defend.




ok, we needed 10-20 years to develop a working carrier force with a world fun of trained men. It can just not happen. 

Er... Alliance created carrier forces much faster, if i'm not mistaken. Less than two years, and they have carrier forces.




... You don't know a lot about naval technology, do you? 



Actually, i knew a lot to knew, that all this problems may be solved pretty quickly. Not the most effective way, of course, but quickly. The Royal Navy need no more than two years to reach "Argus", that was the first completely combat-capable carrier. And she was supposed to carry torpedo bombers, not small fighters.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:07 pm

 By the way a coal ship can't use its machines during landing / take off as it generates too much smoke for aircrafts. How can you expect them to solve it easily?  

Well, the simplest solution is to use the floatplanes, like the Alliance.

As i recall, there was plenty of ideas how to hide the smoke, in XIX century, especially for torpedo boats. They were coal-burners for a most part of this era, and their weapon were really short-range.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Admin on Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:51 pm

True! With floatplanes it should be much easier!

Not that easy in a foreign language :p

Admin
Admin

Posts : 73
Join date : 2015-07-01

http://destroyermen.forumactif.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:10 pm

True! With floatplanes it should be much easier!

And it itsn't that hard to turn the 1930th level fighter into the floatplane.

Also, the coal smoke problems. Well, there was a lot of possible solutions, actually - if we install forced draft, we could even just exaust the smoke through water for a time. It isn't the best solution, but workable for a short time, when we need to put the planes on carrier.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:00 pm

Also, about the coal carrier problem...


This didn't stop neither "Sable" nor "Wolverine". They both were coal-burners... and probably the most efficient aircraft carriers ever build. Smile

Oh, and they were fresh-water and paddle-wheeled, also.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:39 pm

Over on the the "Alliance "Arata Amagi" refit" discussion the issue of to BB or not to BB has risen again. The perceived threat is the Savoie and clearly nothing the Alliance currently possesses can cope with her.

While a refitted Arata Amagi could handle anything we know of in the Grik and Dom arsenals it could not realistically succeed against a 20th century BB.

While it could be argued that the Alliance possesses magical production capabilities it would be a stretch for her to produce a competitive BB in the foreseeable future. So what to do?

We know that the Alliance can produce slow DDs short range torpedos and smaller naval rifles, they are developing CLs and producing a seemingly endless supply of small internal combustion engines. Perhaps focus should be on improving what we have rather than shifting what would have to be a major part of production into prototyping anew and highly complex naval vessel. Use the turbine design they have to move past triple expansion steam for true DDs rather that big corvettes. Produce bigger more powerful aircraft engines and more capable aircraft designs.

A comment is made by one of the characters along the lines that he or she is glad they received incremental improvements in armaments as developed rather than having to wait until they can be fed in all at once. Rather than wait for a BB more DDs would have more utility especially if armed with reliable torpedos
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:02 am

more DDs would have more utility especially if armed with reliable torpedos

The problem is, Jeune Ecole never actually work. The all-destroyer squadrons tended to lose to the balanced fleets. And it seems that League may have balanced fleet of destroyers, cruisers, battleships and maybe carriers.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:33 am

Sorry didn't make myself clear - rather than produce a BB, produce multiple DDs and use them in concert with Revenges and carriers and maybe even CLs though I think the latter is a reach (probably better to think of them as super DDs) Balance is always a better option.

Even without the bigger ships we already have a pretty good balance for the opposition we know about other than the Savioe of course, we just need to up the number of real  DDs and even the Grik iron clads are not a real menace

And it seems that League may have balanced fleet of destroyers, cruisers, battleships and maybe carriers.

Lets wait and see. The Europeans apart from the British were never really too into carriers - probably superfluous to continental powers with plenty of land based cover. the rest remains to be seen. In any case I'm not too sure the League really have the stomach for a fight yet, they said as much to Kurasawa.
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:01 am

The League has a "stomach for a fight," but plan to let their enemies exhaust themselves fighting each other.  I consider this dumb since  the winner will have experienced battle tested troops and leadership, its war industry geared to support such an effort, and the confidence they can win against the odds.  As more and more former Doms join the Alliance ranks they will have the population boost to replace their personnel losses, not to mention the the influx of Lemurians from 'The Great Southern Isle' (Australia).

Three things have held back the production of battleships:

(1) the Republic of Real People's emphasis on army rather than navy with the Grik their main enemy.   Given Savoie's 'visit' this attitude will change.

(2) Union [to coin a term for the former Destroyermen-Lemurian Alliance in discussion while we wait Taylor's name] leadership with the post Pearl Harbor American respect for aircraft carriers and thinking the battleship was obsolete facing Grik Zeps.

(3) Union lack of experience in steel production, and supply probably soon to be over.

The need for heavier Naval gunships, cruisers and battleships, for shore bombardment prior to landings, reducing costal forts, and combined fleet operations will become obvious to planners.

Given Walker's problems, steering, condenser, and battle damage, she will have to go back for another 'face lift'  so unless Captain Reddy transfers to the other 'Walker' clone he will be out of the fight and have time to consider what his navy will need in light of Savoie, and see his new baby.

Hopefully the 'sparky' types will develop radar soon.

All that said the earliest BBs will appear is Late 1945 or more likely in 1946, unless something like Dilandu's Alliance "Arata Amagi" refit.
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:36 am

produce multiple DDs and use them in concert with Revenges and carriers and maybe even CLs though I think the latter is a reach (probably better to think of them as super DDs) Balance is always a better option.

Ah, with that i agree completely.

Lets wait and see. The Europeans apart from the British were never really too into carriers - probably superfluous to continental powers with plenty of land based cover. the rest remains to be seen. In any case I'm not too sure the League really have the stomach for a fight yet, they said as much to Kurasawa.

Well, actually, France have a pretty good understanding of carrier-based aviation. They just didn't have enough money before war to build a carrier fleet. In 1920, they have "Bearn" and "Commandant Teste" for the support of their slow battleships. In 1930 they recognised the need of fast carriers, but they simply wasn't able to build them fast enough.

Hard to say, what could the League have. They have "Savoie", whic means that their navy is different from the real world. On the other hands, they have "Surcouf"-type submarine - which indicated that some sort of Washington Treaty of 1922 happened in League World too. My personal opinion, that there was no London Treaty of 1930 in League's world, but it still need to be proved.

But the League should clearly understood, that they would need carriers to safely operate on the long distances from coastal bases. And in Destroyermen's world they clearly would be forced to operate on the pretty long distances. So they MUST work on some sort of naval airpower, at least as soon as they knew that Alliance have airplanes and Kurokawa worked on them too.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:47 am

I consider this dumb since the winner will have experienced battle tested troops and leadership, its war industry geared to support such an effort, and the confidence they can win against the odds.

Not completely. Firstly, we didn't knew how much League may have in therms of infrastructure and industrial capabilites. The high-technology warships like "Savoie" need a lot of maintenance; drydocks, spare parts, ect. The League may need time to create the infrastructure for that.

Then, the League ideal, as i recall, is the "cold war scenario", where no one actually won and both sides didn't thrust each other. I.e. their idea is the world, where both sides would need League on their own side to won the possible next war. If the Griks would take the upper hand, the League would sided with Alliance. If the Alliance would take the upper hand, the League would side with Griks. Well-balanced scenario for them.

(1) the Republic of Real People's emphasis on army rather than navy with the Grik their main enemy. Given Savoie's 'visit' this attitude will change.

Well, they clearly capable of building at least 8-inch breechloading rifles. And, as i understood, the guns of Republic monitors are considered old and obsolete for now. They could clearly create 12-13 inch rifles of late XIX-early XX design.

(2) Union [to coin a term for the former Destroyermen-Lemurian Alliance in discussion while we wait Taylor's name] leadership with the post Pearl Harbor American respect for aircraft carriers and thinking the battleship was obsolete facing Grik Zeps.

I really doubt that. Remember - the Destroyermen's appeared from early 1942, when the situation was very far from clear. The Pearl Harbour raid, after all, was the attack on the ships locked in harbour and not ready to battle.

And - they have THEIR OWN experience, fighting Griks and Dom's, that clearly indicated the need for a better protected warships.

(3) Union lack of experience in steel production, and supply probably soon to be over.

That's why i promoted the reinforced concrete construction.

Given Walker's problems, steering, condenser, and battle damage, she will have to go back for another 'face lift' so unless Captain Reddy transfers to the other 'Walker' clone he will be out of the fight and have time to consider what his navy will need in light of Savoie, and see his new baby.

Quite possibly. The "Walker" was pretty badly shaken on Madagascar. She should need the refit badly.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:39 pm

We are speculating without incomplete information on the 1847 Americans, and the League of Tripoli. We even have a less than complete look at Alliance manufacturing capacity and capabilities as well. Taylor has mentioned some of this will be resolved in the next two books.

Other than Kurokawa's 'sneak attack' on the second convoy from India, the attack by the Republic of Real People, and Shinya's chase of the Army of God I doubt we will see much action in the next book, but we will get an info dump on a lot we have been speculating about. I don't see the Grik's swarm attacking Madagascar in the next book, he will still building his small craft invasion fleet, and perhaps reorganizing his army after Halik and his army arrive with veteran troops and commanders. Maybe even incoperating fixed wing fighters from Kurokawa. Not to mention reacting to the attack by the Republic of Real People.
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:53 pm

Sounds like a lot of action to me! Seriously while I'm keen to see some of the back of house stuff underpinning the Alliance, as you said somewhere else action sells books. Hopefully it'll be a compromise between the two because the Alliance supply chain is starting to look a little magical.
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:36 pm

Sounds like a lot of action to me! Seriously while I'm keen to see some of the back of house stuff underpinning the Alliance, as you said somewhere else action sells books. Hopefully it'll be a compromise between the two because the Alliance supply chain is starting to look a little magical.

Well, we could always hope for some side stories, that would explained the "non-action parts". Like the Eric Flint "Ring of Fire" and "The ram rebellion" short-stroy books act as a side stories for the main novels of 1632 and 1633 series.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:59 pm

Just drafted a really excellent and long winded post and somehow lost it. Anyway long story short one way to get a feel for waht the league could have is to look at the composition of the Malta supply convoys

The British used massive naval escort squadrons including multiple CVs and BBs and as many as thirty plus DDs. Admittedly these escorts took heavy losses and who knows what made it through the transition but potentially the Leauge could have a massive naval force in additon to whatever was being convoyed.

avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Oct 05, 2015 2:07 pm

Anyway long story short one way to get a feel for waht the league could have is to look at the composition of the Malta supply convoys

Hm, the League fleet was invasion fleet, headed to Egypt. The problem is, what exactly this could mean? We knew, that League include France and Italy; so, actually, they didn't need to invade Egypt from sea. They could just concentrate armed forced in italian and french colonies nearby and go by land.

So, was the League's fleet an amphibious force with large warship escort, or well-defended supply convoy? Also, they have long-range land-based bombers (at leas one); this could indicate, that at least part of transfer was land-based.

Also, the "Surcouf"-type... What was she doing in the Mediterranean? This type of submarines were designed as ocean raiders, that should attack the enemy communications. For what reason the League decided to take one in Mediterranian?
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum